Wilson needs a fair and impartial trial

[JDPriestly]

53. He killed someone. The question is did he really have a defense that society recognizes?

He has not been found guilty, but he hasn't been found innocent either. His guilt or innocence is in question.

Unlike many similar situations, there is no question: Wilson killed Brown. The shooting itself was brutal -- some say up to 12 bullets were fired and while Brown was at some distance from Wilson, apparently trying to get away or returning. That is unclear. A lot of things are unclear.

A trial with sharp cross-examinations would clarify things. I think a trial is needed.

Which of the witnesses were telling the truth? Which were confused but well meaning?

What law applies? Can a police officer shoot someone because that someone insults the officer?

To what extent was Wilson responsible for escalating a minor incident into a very violent incident? Was he responsible for that at all? Did he have, as a police officer, a duty to try to diffuse an angry situation? Did he have the right to assault Brown by opening his police car door so as to hit Brown and brush Johnson? Did he really know about the theft of the cigarillos when he backed up his car to confront Brown for Brown's angry statement?

There are many, many questions that should be answered in a trial. The ultimate question is whether the killing was really self-defense or was Wilson looking for an opportunity to use his gun on someone? Wilson will probably be found innocent because in a trial, the jury would have to find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Wilson gets the benefit of the doubt. But a life has been lost, a young life, and as the OP states, at this point Wilson has not been deemed innocent. He is neither guilty nor innocent. The Grand Jury does not determine guilt or innocence. It determines whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant a trial. The Grand Jury tried to determine guilt or innocence. That was not its job. When around 12 bullets are fired at an unarmed person, there should be a trial of the person who fired the shots.

Can anyone shoot anyone and then just claim he did it because he was scared and it's OK? I don't think so. Would a reasonable police officer have been that frightened in that situation? What alternatives would a reasonable police officer have had under those circumstances?

It may be legally or socially permissible to give Wilson a free killing just because he was a police officer, but, as a society, we should not accept that standard.